Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A hairdresser

A salon

Representatives

None

None

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00013080-001

10 August 2017

The complainant claims holiday and public holiday pay; the respondent denies the claim.

The complainant outlined that she commenced working for the respondent in late September 2016. This ended on the 7th August 2017. In October 2016, she was out of work on sick leave for six weeks and in hospital for a further 2.5 weeks in January 2017. This illness was not related with work. She worked three days per week. She was doing Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays for a couple of months and then Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. She never worked on a Monday.

The complainant said that she accrued annual leave both while working and on sick leave. She was paid €180 as a week’s. She was paid €190 for holiday pay at the end of her employment. She was not paid holiday pay in the course during her employment with the respondent. The complainant was not paid for public holidays.

The complainant referred to a spreadsheet which showed that she was owed €648 in holiday pay, of which she had already received €190. The complainant said that she was owed an additional €324 in public holiday pay.

In reply to the respondent submission, the complainant said that she had to follow-up several times to receive payment of the weeks’ notice. She had been out of work from the 12th January to the 4th February 2017 and this was a period of four weeks and not six weeks. She received €180 on the 8th August 2017 and this was the week’s pay. The respondent confirmed that this in a text message on the 2nd August 2017. The complainant received a further €192.60 on the 21st August 2017 and this is the last payment she received. She never received pay slips so did not know what deductions had been made to her pay.

The respondent said that she had known the complainant for three or four years and they had worked well together. The complainant began working for the respondent after she opened her own salon. The complainant started not being able to do hours and would call in sick. This put the pressure on the respondent. The complainant was given two warnings: one to do with a fight and a second for being late. This put pressure on a colleague, who had to open the premises on her own.

The respondent said that she had to repeat instructions to the complainant to shampoo clients. She asked the complainant to do training classes and to find a model, but she would not participate. The complainant’s text messages were always sent very late, when her children were in bed. She also texted during the time of the party.

The respondent said that she paid the complainant whatever her accountant told her to pay. The complainant worked 20 hours per week. She worked full days on Friday and Saturday, 9am to 5.30pm. She worked 9am to 1pm on Wednesdays. She did not know why there are four ‘N/A’ entries on the sheet for public holidays. The sheet refers to €145.52 owing to the complainant and this was paid.

In relation to holiday pay, this was 8% so 8 hours holiday pay was due for every 100 hours worked. There was 260 hours worked by the complainant up to the 25th December 2016 and 52.50 hours up to the 31st July 2017. She paid €180 due for the holiday pay and the additional amount of €192.60 was paid later. The hours the complainant would have worked while on sick leave were not included in the calculation of hours worked. The €180 was paid at the end of July or early August 2017. The €192.60 was paid shortly after that.

The respondent texted the complainant to say that she had to let her go, who claimed her entitlement to notice pay. She required the complainant to work her notice week but the complainant did not show up for work. The respondent did not contact the complainant to ask if she was coming into work.

The complainant was paid €60 per day and this was her rate of pay for every day. The respondent asked the complainant if she wanted pay slips but she did not want them. She signed social welfare forms for the complainant.

CA-00013080-001

This is a complaint pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act. The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on the 28th September 2016 and this came to an end on the 7th August 2017. The complainant worked three days and was paid €180 per week. There was a question whether the complainant worked 20 or 24 hours per week. The complaint form states 20 hours per week and this correlates with the respondent’s evidence. The spreadsheet prepared by the complainant refers to 24 hours per week. Given what is stated in the complaint form, I find that the complainant worked 20 hours per week.

This claim relates to outstanding holiday pay and public holiday pay. The complainant is correct that she accrued paid annual leave when on sick leave. She was also entitled to public holiday pay for the weeks in which she worked that there was a public holiday. The complainant’s comprehensive spreadsheet outlines that her period of employment was 45 weeks. With a 20-hour working week, the complainant’s entitlement to annual leave was 72 hours. Taking her hourly rate of pay as €9 (180/20), she had entitlement to paid annual leave of €648. As set out in the spreadsheet, the complainant was entitled to €324 in public holiday pay. Taking account of the €192.60 already paid by the respondent to the complainant, the complainant is due €779.40.

CA-00013080-001

I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €779.40.

Organisation of Working Time Act